W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2005

open (?) BIND issues, was: WG process (was Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-07.txt)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:08:23 +0200
Message-ID: <42970DB7.3020301@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: 'webdav' WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>> If you think that, you really should either bring them up (if new), 
>> or  follow-up on the discussions we had on the mailing list. Claiming 
>> that  there are open issues but not participating in discussing them 
>> doesn't  seem productive to me. See (for instance):  
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005AprJun/ 
>> 0001.html>.
> 
> 
> At this point I'm willing to consider the Bind/DeltaV interaction  
> issues to be closed, but I'm not satisfied with the latitude given to  
> servers to behave entirely differently with respect to access control  
> and certain key properties (getlastmodified and getetag), because I can  
> foresee serious interoperability problems and burdens for client  
> implementors.  I can keep repeating myself about this, and sometimes do  
> so, but I see little point to get into "Yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes  
> it is" conversations. I tend to simply leave the last email from me as  
> a record of my continuing position.

Lisa, this isn't helpful.

Jim W. and I had a long brainstorming on this issue; and I have written 
down what we talked about. Both Jim and I spent a considerable amount of 
time to get there. Again, this is in

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005AprJun/0001.html>.

It would be very nice if you could *read* that summary and follow up 
once you've done that. I'd also like to point out that you seem the be 
the single WG member who still has objections, so there *is* broad 
consensus on this issue.

>>> difficult hurdle may well be the lack of reviews and implementors.  If
>>
>>
>> We've got at least two implementations. How many do we need to for  
>> "Proposed"?
> 
> 
> That's an excellent question and we may find that there are different  
> answers.  For peer-to-peer protocol I'd say 3 implementations in the  
> works, because that means that it's not enough to simply have a  
> bilateral agreement between two implementors -- with three you really  
> need consensus and eventually can test three pairings of  
> implementations.  For client/server standards like ours, I'd say two  
> clients and two servers would ideally be in progress by the time you  
> ask for a Proposed Standard.  If there's only one server in progress  
> then the whole standard will be geared toward the architecture that one  
> server happens to have.  Similarly if there's only one client in  
> progress then there's serious risk that the standard will only reflect  
> one set of use cases and environmental assumptions.  If you have no  
> clients in progress then the standard will have a serious bias to  
> reflect the needs of server implementors.

Could you please clarify where the requirement for implementations 
actually comes from?

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 27 May 2005 12:08:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:08 GMT